The #googlememo fiasco is exactly why #DemocratToDeplorable is happening. We are an unprotected class in America. Wrongthink gets you fired.
— Jack Murphy (@jackmurphylive) August 8, 2017
The GoogleMemo fiasco is exactly why #DemocratToDeplorable is happening. The world is dividing between science deniers and truth seekers. We are an unprotected class in a world obsessed with identity politics. If you have different political views, you are at risk. What is between your legs won’t get you fired but what is between your ears will.
The GoogleMemo resonates so deeply with all of us is because it cooly states things we passionately rant about every day (see full memo here). But the author, James Damore, does it calmly, with scientific backup, and a cautious tone. Yet, the social justice warriors at Google, who claim to worship diversity, call it hate speech. If a detached consideration of an alternative point of view gets you fired, what will happen when your employer learns about your even more offensive views?
Even scarier, Google has access to most of our emails, browsing history, shopping data, and more. They have all the dirt they need to ruin us in the eyes of the hysterical public. If a dedicated Googler can’t have a different view point without getting fired, what does that mean for those of us Google may see as an external enemy? Where does the progression end?
There is a word which describes what just happened at Google. It’s called “persecution.” It is defined (by Google) as: hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs. When Damore was fired for his wrongthink, he was persecuted.
#DemocratToDeplorable and anyone who is red pilled at all, are now members of a persecuted class in America. The science deniers are silencing truth seekers through forced unemployment, public shame, blacklists, and more.
3. I am not going to cry victim status. And I’ve been in denial about it. But being fired for your political thoughts is called persecution.
— Jack Murphy (@jackmurphylive) August 8, 2017
Since when is science up for debate?
In the old days, religion was protected and science was persecuted. Consider Galileo. The church persecuted him for advancing a heliocentric model of the solar system. He defied religion and was tried for heresy in the 17th century.
Since then science became more accepted and until this #currentyear we generally believed in hard science over religious speculation. Especially as atheism became more popular, science became the source of truth.
But today, a different religion is fighting to regain control of the narrative.
Leftist cult thinking is the new religion of the masses. However, instead of having an origin in cumulative human history, the cult left exists purely as a power play.
What does this power play look like?
Women and minorities believe they are powerless and oppressed unjustly. Their sole mission is to upend the existing power structures to become more powerful. This mission involves attacking every single element of current power. Science, reality, sexual relationships, family structures, intelligence, biology and a myriad of other things we can see with our own two eyes are now hate speech and must be obliterated.
The cult left must destroy masculinity to destroy the family to destroy the patriarchy and end male supremacy.
View all of their actions through this lens.
Truth doesn’t matter anymore.
The only truth which matters is the one that wins.
If the cult left can overcome the “patriarchy” and bring “equality” to all things in all places, their version of the truth will remain, while traditional notions will perish.
h/t Paul Joseph Watson
Cult of Chaos
Chaos is a sign of progress for the cult left. To erode the power structures they must demonstrate it is failing. Sowing disorder is their mission.
Actions have consequences, however. When the masses feel unanchored, when they feel adrift in a sea of subjective reality, they reach out for authority and strong leadership. They seek a force for order and stability. In election 2016, this drive for structure in a world of chaos gave us Donald Trump as President.
People voted for Donald Trump begging for a return to objective reality.
Post-Modern philosophy believes there is no such thing.
There is nothing to be gained by pointing out all the hypocrisy in the response to the GoogleMemo. It doesn’t matter. Arguing with them on facts is useless. The same women who claim to be equal to men also understand they long for a penis to penetrate them. They know it’s all bullshit. But it doesn’t matter, why? Because it’s all about power.
I used to get upset thinking about feminist or intersectional contradictions and lies. Some of what they say is so outrageous it will make your head explode the first few times you think it through. But forget about that.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
These girls are just playing the game.
We all exist in a dominance hierarchy. Those on top wish to maintain their dominance and those without it wish to get some. The same way you want to move up relative to your male peers, women want to gain power relative to men. It’s not immoral or even “wrong.” It just IS.
The Good News
There is good news to come out of GoogleMemo Gate. According to internal Google polling, 48% of Googlers ranged from “Strongly Agree” with the memo’s contents to being simply neutral on it. 48% also disagreed. Google is split 50/50 down the middle with half on the crazed SJW side, and half on our side.
This is progress.
The mainstream press picked up the story and is disseminating the memo, even if it is redacted or without the citations, people in the “real world” are talking about these issues.
This is part of a normalization process.
Google has silly policies, the guy wrote a thoughtful memo about them, he got fired, and now the world is reading his words. Awareness. Discussion. Even the beginnings of mild acceptance. I am encouraged by the general reaction and for the light shined on these subjects.
The more we all talk, the better. The more articles that are written, the better. More hysteria? Even better!
At the end of the day change can’t come without people talking and today we’re talking.
Count this one as a victory in the ongoing culture war.
1. You’re right that arguing is useless. No set of facts will ever convince the pro-diversity crowd that they are wrong. As someone pointed out, women have different entertainment and shopping preferences than men. Is there a debate about that? But somehow, those are the only differences between women and men; they are otherwise identical in their love for technology, programming, etc. Everything is set up by design to be competitive rather than cooperative.
2. The writing is on the wall for many of these services because of blockchain. There is no reason why something like YouTube cannot exist in a distributed fashion in computers all over the world, where people get paid in some kind of cryptocurrency to host data (there are several coins like this out there already). Can we do distributed search? I don’t see why not.
Usually we must keep talking about the contradictions inherent in their thinking in order to convince the almost-converted to take the final leap. But events like the google memo do more for us than any amount of dialectic will.
Google revealed itself to be quite weak with this episode. The nerdy ass engineers, likely betas who are confused by and prob resent women, don’t really want equality at all costs. As newer and better alternatives arise, Google could lose it’s most important assets – it’s men.
Yes, we should have debate but arguing that “Google has silly policies” because Google is trying to increase the % of women (and minorities) working there, and that “Google’s most important assetts are men” is hardly the science you claim to support.
If you are willing to have a reasoned debate – and not the ‘chaos’ you claim some people want, how about read this article which explains from a woman’s point of view, why there was a backlash to the memo.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16130452/google-memo-women-tech-biology-sexism
Your straw man argument has no merit here. I never said google has silly policies or that google’s most important assets are men. In fact, I didn’t talk about the contents of the memo at all.
I’m all for reasoned debate. It’s the other side the desires chaos. I’ve read all the articles and I can tell you, anything that starts with “a woman’s point of view” is useless. There is no male or female point of view here. There is only science. And science says men and women are different, therefore equality of outcomes is impossible. Equality of opportunity is all we can achieve, the rest is up to the individuals to decide through their own actions.
Women think they get judged for being female. No, they get judged if and when they act stupid. Just like stupid men do.
You say you’ve read all the arguments but it seems like you haven’t read the one I mentioned. She gives a very good point by point explanation as to why the “science” quoted in the original memo was cherry-picking and also why people were upset by the memo. She explains this better than me, so please try to read it. (Yes she titled it “A woman’s point of view” – so what? Why does this mean the article is useless? Would it make a difference if she had titled it “One person’s point of view” ?)
I agree we are after equality of opportunity. But currently most women working in tech do not have that. The programs at Google and other companies are now trying to start to change that. The women I know who work at Google in Australia think these programs are helping.
I’m not trying to set you up as a straw man. Just point some things out. The article above – which I assume you wrote – does say “Google has silly policies” and your reply to Dman below says “Google could lose it’s most important assets – it’s men.” How are the women who work there not also its important assets?
This is the crux. Is it reasonable to assume every job in the world will be split 50/50 between men and women?
If yes, well, we have nothing more to talk about because that is insane. And women don’t really care about gender parity in every position, only in some positions. No women arguing for more women in forestry or mining.
If no, well, then we’re now only talking about what degree of “inequality” is acceptable.
Every woman in the United States has the choice to sign up for computer science as a major when they get to college. Most don’t. And it’s not because men are telling them not to. They simply are less interested.
I, for one, don’t see preferences as a problem. I think the biggest mistake of feminism was to create a masculine ideal for women. Why not champion femininity for women? Why not push society to cherish traits which women have a tendency to express, rather than assert the ideal woman behaves just like a man?
And you’re right, I did say silly policies. I forgot. And yes, they are silly policies. Enforcing an impossible and undesirable ideal of 50/50 gender parity in every position is silly.